Remember not to destroy evidence when in a fight with the RIAA or anybody else

[Czar]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Tobolo

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would think that destroying "evidence" would be the least of the judge's concerns here. What about the illegal gathering of evidence? What gives the RIAA the right or authority to monitor my activity?

There would have to be two logical ways they could have done this:

1. Warrant - not likely to be obtained because the RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency and I would think that the real agencies have a little more pressing issues
2. Setting up their own P2P server and "allowing" users to download from them and then going after the owner via identifying packet info that includes IP - ENTRAPMENT (also, it has been successfully argued before that an IP address isn't a positive ID of the person operating the system at any given time -- If someone is driving my car and they get pulled over for speeding, I sure as shite don't get the ticket for the violation)

Either way, this person's lawyer sucks and should be sued for malpractice for ever letting this get this far.

Ok so the RIAA is not a government entity. And they are not Taping your phones or anything. If they put music out there and you download it. It's your own damn fault.

A: They can monitor who access' their files
B: Entrapment in most states that I know of applies to law enforcement personell.

If you are caught, then your are fn busted. Sorry. Take your licks and move on.

But here's the conundrum, If they are putting it out there for you to download, they are acting as the copyright owners, therefore are providing the music for free. Remember, they are the owners, and if they want to distribute it for free via P2P then they can, They shouldn't be able to offer it, then say, Oh nevermind, we're going to sue you.
It's the same as Microsoft offering Security updates, and then once everyone has them, them saying, Oh, you have to pay for those.

exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

You don't understand what happened, do you ? Using a magnet would be just as illegal as what she did. And it would be very easy to prove that you had tampered with evidence.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Tobolo

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would think that destroying "evidence" would be the least of the judge's concerns here. What about the illegal gathering of evidence? What gives the RIAA the right or authority to monitor my activity?

There would have to be two logical ways they could have done this:

1. Warrant - not likely to be obtained because the RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency and I would think that the real agencies have a little more pressing issues
2. Setting up their own P2P server and "allowing" users to download from them and then going after the owner via identifying packet info that includes IP - ENTRAPMENT (also, it has been successfully argued before that an IP address isn't a positive ID of the person operating the system at any given time -- If someone is driving my car and they get pulled over for speeding, I sure as shite don't get the ticket for the violation)

Either way, this person's lawyer sucks and should be sued for malpractice for ever letting this get this far.

Ok so the RIAA is not a government entity. And they are not Taping your phones or anything. If they put music out there and you download it. It's your own damn fault.

A: They can monitor who access' their files
B: Entrapment in most states that I know of applies to law enforcement personell.

If you are caught, then your are fn busted. Sorry. Take your licks and move on.

But here's the conundrum, If they are putting it out there for you to download, they are acting as the copyright owners, therefore are providing the music for free. Remember, they are the owners, and if they want to distribute it for free via P2P then they can, They shouldn't be able to offer it, then say, Oh nevermind, we're going to sue you.
It's the same as Microsoft offering Security updates, and then once everyone has them, them saying, Oh, you have to pay for those.

That is not a good analogy for two reasons:

1) The security updating software is embedded right in the OS.
2) The updating software has the ability to display an EULA where needed and where appropriate.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

as soon as a CD is out in the store it is "potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies".. sue the RIAA for that?

What might happen is not good enough, it has to have happened or the intent of it happening at best.

A store has the right to sell a CD, putting a copyrighted song on a p2p network without permission is not the same thing at all.

And your wrong in your second sentence too. The $150,000 fine is part of a law passed by Congress, and it has not been overturned by any court, so your just wrong. You might think it's unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Lots of people, including me and a majority of Congress, think it is fair.

They have the right to sell the cd yes, but the possibility of unlimited copies out there remains the same.

About the law, the law reprisents the will of the people.. or the will of the special interest groups alot of the times. Its a rather new law if I remember correctly, we will just have to see how it turns out.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

her using a magnet would not have helped. she was hit for tampering with evidence. using a magnet would be the same.

yes they could still prove she did. the fact that the drive is ruined is proof enough.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

as soon as a CD is out in the store it is "potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies".. sue the RIAA for that?

What might happen is not good enough, it has to have happened or the intent of it happening at best.

A store has the right to sell a CD, putting a copyrighted song on a p2p network without permission is not the same thing at all.

And your wrong in your second sentence too. The $150,000 fine is part of a law passed by Congress, and it has not been overturned by any court, so your just wrong. You might think it's unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Lots of people, including me and a majority of Congress, think it is fair.

I agree with Tom. The artist has to believe that the penalty for copyright infringment is going to outweigh the benefit of copying it - otherwise there is not much point in making the song.

If all I had to do was to pay a nominal fee for stealing music, then it might be worth the risk. At $150,000 per incident, it will never be worth it.

 

[Yanagi]

Ghost the Win partition. run 7 zero passes, run a couple of random passes. install windows, install a bunch of programs until HDD is completely filled. uninstall the programs, rince and repeat. Evidence gone

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

her using a magnet would not have helped. she was hit for tampering with evidence. using a magnet would be the same.

yes they could still prove she did. the fact that the drive is ruined is proof enough.

How can they prove she did it? If she had a good alibi (on vacation and her brother did it) then she's fine. She would be held liable for something out of her control (read the OP: "by the fact that the defendant herself was responsible for the destruction of evidence")? A good lawyer and you're off the hook. If the hard drive was really that important then it wouldn't have been in her possession in the first place and the computer would have been confiscated by the cops immediately and there would be no good faith BS.

 

[fatpat268]

Personally, I would've burned the hard drive and quickly bought a new one, install everything, and act like it was used for a while.

But I'd probably get in trouble for that, but I'd get a good lawyer and fight.

Fvck the RIAA. I understand what they're doing, but they're doing it the wrong way.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

as soon as a CD is out in the store it is "potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies".. sue the RIAA for that?

What might happen is not good enough, it has to have happened or the intent of it happening at best.

A store has the right to sell a CD, putting a copyrighted song on a p2p network without permission is not the same thing at all.

And your wrong in your second sentence too. The $150,000 fine is part of a law passed by Congress, and it has not been overturned by any court, so your just wrong. You might think it's unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Lots of people, including me and a majority of Congress, think it is fair.

They have the right to sell the cd yes, but the possibility of unlimited copies out there remains the same.

About the law, the law reprisents the will of the people.. or the will of the special interest groups alot of the times. Its a rather new law if I remember correctly, we will just have to see how it turns out.

There is no potential created for unlimited copies by selling a CD. The only way that could happen is if someone illegally copies the CD. And even then, it is very unlikely to do as much economic harm as sharing copyrighted works on the internet does.

Your argument is the same as saying that Toyota is responsible for a bank robbery that uses one of their cars for the getaway.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Czar
exactly
its like if the RIAA would put a box of CD's with a sign that says free cd's, then sue everyone for theft when they take one

Just because the software to take music is readily available and easy to use doesn't mean that it is OK to use it to steal things with it.

If someone forgot their keys in their car on the front seat with the door unlocked, does it make it any less of a theft when you take their car. You know you didn't pay for it, you know it isn't yours so why is this different?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

her using a magnet would not have helped. she was hit for tampering with evidence. using a magnet would be the same.

yes they could still prove she did. the fact that the drive is ruined is proof enough.

How can they prove she did it? If she had a good alibi (on vacation and her brother did it) then she's fine. She would be held liable for something out of her control? A good lawyer and you're off the hook.

having someone else destroy your drive is the same as you destroying it. now if she did not know he was going to do anything great yeah i guess she could get off hte hook.

now. do you really think that they are not going to go after the brother?

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Yanagi
Ghost the Win partition. run 7 zero passes, run a couple of random passes. install windows, install a bunch of programs until HDD is completely filled. uninstall the programs, rince and repeat. Evidence gone

And you're still guilty of tampering with evidence.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
I understand what they're doing, but they're doing it the wrong way.

Agreed.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Personally, I would've burned the hard drive and quickly bought a new one, install everything, and act like it was used for a while.

But I'd probably get in trouble for that, but I'd get a good lawyer and fight.

Fvck the RIAA. I understand what they're doing, but they're doing it the wrong way.

no you wouldnt.

you would pay the $2k they ask you to. to fight it would cost you far more. and odds are you do not have a few hundred thousand to blow on this.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: fatpat268
I understand what they're doing, but they're doing it the wrong way.

Agreed.

yeap. i think the RIAA should be looked at by the goverment. the blanket "john doe" lawsuits, no proof bsides a IP addy, and what i consider illegal warrents. Also the suits are questionable in themsevles.

"pay $3k or i will take you to court. yes we know we have no proof but it will cost you a lot to prove that!"

 

[BKLounger]

Well you figure 150k per song. An album usually has around 12 tracks. That means if one person pirates the cd and gets caught they can just about fund the whole creation of the cd from sueing that one person.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
She's pretty stupid and should have just used a magnet. Prove it, there's nothing left.

150K per song, LOL what the hell is wrong with this statement? What she did was no worse than stealing a bunch of CD's from target. Which is why I'll continue to illegally use allofmp3.com because our legal system (regarding digital music copyright laws) is blantantly egregious equating to unwarranted scare tactics. RIAA can fvcking bite me.

her using a magnet would not have helped. she was hit for tampering with evidence. using a magnet would be the same.

yes they could still prove she did. the fact that the drive is ruined is proof enough.

How can they prove she did it? If she had a good alibi (on vacation and her brother did it) then she's fine. She would be held liable for something out of her control? A good lawyer and you're off the hook.

having someone else destroy your drive is the same as you destroying it. now if she did not know he was going to do anything great yeah i guess she could get off hte hook.

now. do you really think that they are not going to go after the brother?

Reread the OP: "by the fact that the defendant herself was responsible for the destruction of evidence". Sure they'd go after the brother but he could have just hid his motive to save his sis by trashing the whole computer and said she had messed with his comic collection or something. Like I said, this good faith/bad faith stuff is BS, if they really cared about the computer it would have been confiscated immediately. A judge isn't going to rule on a 150K/song penalty if she wasn't responsible for the destruction of her hard drive IMO. If they really cared that much she wouldn't have had time to even boot Windows up before busting down her door.

 

[mattpegher]

What if she went in and deleted part or all of her music then defragged her drive, would it be as appearent?

 

[Nerva]

so what can you do to protect yourself from the riaa? any measures that people can take?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: 3cho
so what can you do to protect yourself from the riaa? any measures that people can take?

have an open wireless network

 

[RightIsWrong]

This is what I was referring to earlier:

Source

For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files. That, of course, is false. The IP address simply can help you know who paid for the internet access, but not who was using what computer on a network. In fact, this even had some people suggesting that, if you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you're best off opening up your WIFI network to neighbors. It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a case in California as well.. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do. The RIAA certainly has the legal right to go after people, even if it simply ends up pissing off their best fans and driving people to spend their money on other forms of entertainment -- but, if they want to do so, they should at least have legitimate evidence. It's good to see that some are finally pointing out how flimsy the evidence really is.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 3cho
so what can you do to protect yourself from the riaa? any measures that people can take?

ya do not download music

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
This is what I was referring to earlier:

Source

For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files. That, of course, is false. The IP address simply can help you know who paid for the internet access, but not who was using what computer on a network. In fact, this even had some people suggesting that, if you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you're best off opening up your WIFI network to neighbors. It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a case in California as well.. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do. The RIAA certainly has the legal right to go after people, even if it simply ends up pissing off their best fans and driving people to spend their money on other forms of entertainment -- but, if they want to do so, they should at least have legitimate evidence. It's good to see that some are finally pointing out how flimsy the evidence really is.

Good to know, thanks!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
the stupidest thing here is the fine. there is not a single work protected by the RIAA worth $150k. and yet they charge you $150k for each one? the right thing would be to force you to pay maybe 10 times the price as a fine. not $150k.

A person who is sharing files is DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted work, therefore is potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies, not just one copy of each item.


And the fine is a fine, not reimbursement. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

as soon as a CD is out in the store it is "potentially responsible for an unlimited number of illegal copies".. sue the RIAA for that?

What might happen is not good enough, it has to have happened or the intent of it happening at best.

A store has the right to sell a CD, putting a copyrighted song on a p2p network without permission is not the same thing at all.

And your wrong in your second sentence too. The $150,000 fine is part of a law passed by Congress, and it has not been overturned by any court, so your just wrong. You might think it's unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Lots of people, including me and a majority of Congress, think it is fair.

They have the right to sell the cd yes, but the possibility of unlimited copies out there remains the same.

About the law, the law reprisents the will of the people.. or the will of the special interest groups alot of the times. Its a rather new law if I remember correctly, we will just have to see how it turns out.

There is no potential created for unlimited copies by selling a CD. The only way that could happen is if someone illegally copies the CD. And even then, it is very unlikely to do as much economic harm as sharing copyrighted works on the internet does.

Your argument is the same as saying that Toyota is responsible for a bank robbery that uses one of their cars for the getaway.

there isnt?
the possibility of that person from going home, ripping the cd to their itunes, giving a friend a few songs so that friend can hear how awsome the music is, those songs go further and so on

that how pirating of copyright material starts for the average user

On the other hand you have groups, which specialize themselves in finding new material and releasing it on the internet. Those are the people the RIAA should be going after, not the people using their fair use policy of the copyright laws.